Recommended Posts

I do agree that a lot of fans are over the top with their assessments of the FO. I also agree that, yes, we are not 1-31 "terrible."

But I do have to talk about the, "what's the deal, we're over .500 the last few years" thing. While that is true, you have to remember that we've been sub .500 while Snyder has owned the team. Someone did a comparison of our division rivals accomplishments vs ours (wins, playoff app./wins, NFCCG app./wins and SB app./wins, losing records and last place finishes) since Snyder took over. It wasn't even close.

I'll even add that we are the only team in the NFL (including all the expansion teams since 1995) that has not won at least 11 games in a regular season.

I'm not sure about you guys, but while we haven't been total suck, we've been average to suck. 7, 8, 9 win seasons won't cut it for me. I'm sorry, but my standards are a bit higher for this franchise. I'm not talking Patriots level success (once in a lifetime), but maybe more along the lines of a Steelers type success. Pittsburgh is not always dominant, but they are always good. They always compete and they have few losing seasons. They have a sustained success.

So, if .500 floats your boats, more power too you. But I'd like to think as fans, we would want to set the bar higher.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I do agree that a lot of fans are over the top with their assessments of the FO. I also agree that, yes, we are not 1-31 "terrible."

But I do have to talk about the, "what's the deal, we're over .500 the last few years" thing. While that is true, you have to remember that we've been sub .500 while Snyder has owned the team. Someone did a comparison of our division rivals accomplishments vs ours (wins, playoff app./wins, NFCCG app./wins and SB app./wins, losing records and last place finishes) since Snyder took over.

I'll even add that we are the only team in the NFL (including all the expansion teams since 1995) that has not won at least 11 games in a regular season.

I'm not sure about you guys, but while we have been total suck, we've been average to suck. 7, 8, 9 win seasons won't cut it for me. I'm sorry, but my standards are a bit higher for this franchise. I'm not talking Patriots level success (once in a lifetime), but maybe more along the lines of a Steelers type success. Pittsburgh is not always dominant, but they are always good. They always compete and they have few losing seasons. They have a sustained success.

So, if .500 floats your boats, more power too you. But I'd like to think as fans, we would want to set the bar higher.

Of course I want and expect better from the Redskins. I'm not saying everyone should be content and rosy rosy around here either. But the one-sided narratives against the FO and the organization get a bit tiresome. I've seen enough good moves to at least give them one more year to pull this thing together.

I also am speaking from the vantage point that the pre-injury Redskins this year were one of the most competitive and talented team we've fielded since I became a fan. All I know is the Dan Snyder owned Redskins so perhaps watching the past three seasons for me has been a breath of fresh air in comparison to everything outside of 2012 and Gibbs II.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

but then I remind myself that some people just love being negative for the sake of being negative. It’s easy or comfortable, or maybe some truly don’t recognize the power of instantaneous media and social media in today’s day and age.

Somehow you consider yourself enlightened and those with similar viewpoints to my own are just crotchety folks taking the easy way out because our minds are too brittle to withstand the power of the interwebs ability to brainwash folks with agendas.

I don't consider detesting the way the team I've invested 30+ years of my life into is ran to be easy nor comfortable. In fact, it's quite the opposite of that. I honestly wish that I was more like you when it comes to the team. In fact, I used to be just like you guys, not even that long ago. I always convinced myself that this time it's different. I always convinced myself that this time it's going to work out. I always convinced myself that X player would be the missing piece. I always convinced myself it was the player or coach that's the bad guy. I always convinced myself.....on and on and on. Unfortunately, I started paying more attention to well ran franchises and companies in general and what makes them that way. I started reading more alternative points of view and digested them the best I could without my own bias interfering. I then started connecting the dots with how everything has transpired with this team for two decades. It seriously does take a lot of the fun out of what's supposed to be a fun recreational activity in watching and following a football team. It was definitely more fun to spend every offseason giddy about what's to come. In fact, I find that to be the easiest and most comfortable way to go about things. Much easier than recognizing the true weak links to what makes this franchise primarily a perennial loser and that the coaches and players I do respect have a much steeper hill to climb as a result of it.

7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The FO got the Chris Baker thing right. Hell, as someone who wanted Garcon to stay I would even say that, for the money, they probably got that one and DJax right too. There have been plenty of recent draft picks and free agent decisions that I've liked and have worked out. But, individual good moves are all factored into what this FO has done (win about 40% of its games).

Something isn't working. Is it cultural (we have numerous examples of players leaving pissed off, feeling alienated or victimized, speaking out on Twitter, etc.) or is it a matter of them just not having enough good moves to off-set the bad ones? I don't really know. I do know that Bruce Allen has been here since 2010 (basically) and we've won roughly 40% of our games, had 3 winning records in 8 seasons, made the playoffs twice, and lost both those games at home rather comfortably.

So, hooray, they were right about Chris Baker...but how does that one isolated instance change anything?

30 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't consider detesting the way the team I've invested 30+ years of my life into is ran to be easy nor comfortable. In fact, it's quite the opposite of that. I honestly wish that I was more like you when it comes to the team. In fact, I used to be just like you guys, not even that long ago. I always convinced myself that this time it's different. I always convinced myself that this time it's going to work out. I always convinced myself that X player would be the missing piece. I always convinced myself it was the player or coach that's the bad guy. I always convinced myself.....on and on and on. Unfortunately, I started paying more attention to well ran franchises and companies in general and what makes them that way. I started reading more alternative points of view and digested them the best I could without my own bias interfering. I then started connecting the dots with how everything has transpired with this team for two decades. It seriously does take a lot of the fun out of what's supposed to be a fun recreational activity in watching and following a football team. It was definitely more fun to spend every offseason giddy about what's to come. In fact, I find that to be the easiest and most comfortable way to go about things. Much easier than recognizing the true weak links to what makes this franchise primarily a perennial loser and that the coaches and players I do respect have a much steeper hill to climb as a result of it.

I'm like you...as recently as the Zorn years I was a homer yelling at people on ES about how they won't enjoy our climb back to the top as much as I would because they had abandoned the team. Now, I'm more tempered and realistic.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sheehan and Cooley did a whole segment this morning on the FO. Cooley was more negative than I expected because he's said on other segments he's somewhat tight with Bruce and is friendly with other FO guys.

They did a 1-5 scale. 1 meaning great. 5 rock bottom bad

Sheehan rated them a 4 to 4.5 (poor)

He's said they are at a low but not rock bottom level low like at the end of 2009. He's thinks they can look very dysfunctional, mishandled the Kirk contract and citied Bruce's stupidity on the press release and the mean spirited look with the Scot canning.

They are good at knowing when to cut their losses and not overpaying. They aren't very good at accruing talent and he doesn't have confidence they can build a contender.

Cooley rated them a 3 (so so)

Cooley thinks the drama and dysfunction is overplayed. He is not concerned with that from being around Redskins Park. He thinks the players typically don't care what happens with the FO.

He thinks their problem is simple. In his words "they don't make bogeys." He agrees with Sheehan that they aren't good at securing high end talent. He thinks that most fans don't have confidence in the FO and that's justified until they show they can build a winner.

Cooley also said it comes off odd that they hired Scot which alludes that they concede they need to be better at what they do. Then, they fire Scot and basically go back to the very operation that their own previous actions indicated that they don't have faith in. He more or less said he thinks that sends a weird message.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Skinsinparadise

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Something isn't working. Is it cultural (we have numerous examples of players leaving pissed off, feeling alienated or victimized, speaking out on Twitter, etc.) or is it a matter of them just not having enough good moves to off-set the bad ones?

It is an interesting way to put it. I was just thinking about all the things Cooley has said of late about the FO, just different things in bits and pieces. I like to use him because as Sheehan likes to jokes those are your friends (the ones in the FO). So I think he'd have one of the softer view of the FO but one thing I like about Cooley is he can't help but giving upsides and downsides for everything -- at least from his perspective.

So piecing together Cooley's thoughts.

Positive

Drama overplayed. He thinks they have some good people in the FO.

He thinks they have some good talent evaluators in the FO.

He doesn't think they are awful-joke level bad at what they do -- even though he can tell many fans think otherwise

He thinks they don't make a lot of big mistakes, know when to cut their losses

He thinks Jay is good at judging talent. Ditto Kyle Smith. Those are the two he's complemented

Negative

He doesn't think they are great at what they do

They make mistakes that he can see coming and that are obvious to him and he's not even a professional evaluator

He doesn't think they are good at finding top level talent

He think their approach to FA is typically wrong-misguided

They are too conservative - don't swing for the fences -- for that reason among others he has doubts about them having big success

He thinks they are very average. Not awful. Not great.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Skinsinparadise

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cooley also said it comes off odd that they hired Scot which alludes that they concede they need to be better at what they do. Then, they fire Scot and basically go back to the very operation that their own previous actions indicated that they don't have faith in. He more or less said he thinks that sends a weird message.

This is truly weird is it not?

Do you think it's possible they are evaluating potential SMGM replacements, that they think Doug Williams is that guy, or simply that they don't know what to do so they reverted to pre-SMGM?

When they hired SMGM I was over the moon, not because of any expectations I had for his performance, but because it appeared the organization had actually identified a problem with it's own football talent, and taken steps to address it. If they are still actively taking those steps, good. If not, ugh.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cooley thinks the drama and dysfunction is overplayed. He is not concerned with that from being around Redskins Park. He thinks the players typically don't care what happens with the FO.

He thinks their problem is simple. In his words "they don't make bogeys."

I agree with Cooley in that most players really don't care all that much about the front office until they mess with their money. The coaches are the folks they deal with everyday and may have a bearing on how they feel about their employer.

I disagree with them not making bogeys, unless he meant that they make worse. The whole Scot and Kirk situations are absolutely double bogeys or worse. Sure, they make a lot of pars, but they very rarely make birdies and have their fair share of snowmen on the scorecards as well.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do you think it's possible they are evaluating potential SMGM replacements, that they think Doug Williams is that guy, or simply that they don't know what to do so they reverted to pre-SMGM?

I doubt they think Doug Williams is in the same stratosphere as a guy like GMSM. What Doug is, is a good dude that won't rock the boat, look to bring in his own guys or get rid of any of the folks already there.

I'd imagine there is a very short list of folks qualified to be general managers that wouldn't have reservations about taking that kind of job with the Redskins, particularly right after the way things went down with Scot. Any GM worth their salt and without a rap sheet for being an alcoholic is going to want to report directly to the owner and actually have full control of the roster. They certainly aren't going to want to report to a guy like Bruce and seek his approval on football stuff. They would also most likely not want to keep everyone already on staff and certainly want to bring in some of their own guys.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I disagree with them not making bogeys, unless he meant that they make worse.

He meant it as a shot -- the bogey line -- he was talking about in the context that they aren't great at getting the big score. But I know nothing about golf so maybe there was a word or two I missed in the mix. It was 100% clear that it was a shot at them not a complement.

The original meaning of bogey was that it was the score that a very good golfer should aim to make.

I was just thinking more about Cooley's comments. The most succinct summary from multiple comments he's made would be the FO doesn't shoot for the big score, he's not sure if they are capable of hitting the big score even if they tried. But for either reason or both he thinks they are limited for achieving anything special. But he doesn't think they are a clown show either. He thinks they are just ok. Not great. Not awful.

And he understands the fans skepticism about them. The FO needs to prove itself and hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Do you think it's possible they are evaluating potential SMGM replacements, that they think Doug Williams is that guy, or simply that they don't know what to do so they reverted to pre-SMGM?

I think 0% shot they thought Doug would be the next Scot. My guess is Bruce decided he wanted an arrangement where he didn't have some strong willed personnel guy who would challenge him. Before Doug was even given that job, one beat guy said from what he's heard no one in that building had Bruce's back more than Doug. So I think Bruce thought Doug would be a win win. Doug would have his back. And fans maybe would eat it up because of the name-nostalgia.

I recall the smug look on Bruce's face when he did that press conference where he gave the floor to Doug. I think Bruce-Dan were genuinely shocked that the move was greeted with mostly a yawn and or skepticism from the fan base. It was one of multiple PR screw ups last off season -- I think every one of those PR failures surprised them.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Skinsinparadise

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Somehow you consider yourself enlightened and those with similar viewpoints to my own are just crotchety folks taking the easy way out because our minds are too brittle to withstand the power of the interwebs ability to brainwash folks with agendas.

I don't consider detesting the way the team I've invested 30+ years of my life into is ran to be easy nor comfortable. In fact, it's quite the opposite of that. I honestly wish that I was more like you when it comes to the team. In fact, I used to be just like you guys, not even that long ago. I always convinced myself that this time it's different. I always convinced myself that this time it's going to work out. I always convinced myself that X player would be the missing piece. I always convinced myself it was the player or coach that's the bad guy. I always convinced myself.....on and on and on. Unfortunately, I started paying more attention to well ran franchises and companies in general and what makes them that way. I started reading more alternative points of view and digested them the best I could without my own bias interfering. I then started connecting the dots with how everything has transpired with this team for two decades. It seriously does take a lot of the fun out of what's supposed to be a fun recreational activity in watching and following a football team. It was definitely more fun to spend every offseason giddy about what's to come. In fact, I find that to be the easiest and most comfortable way to go about things. Much easier than recognizing the true weak links to what makes this franchise primarily a perennial loser and that the coaches and players I do respect have a much steeper hill to climb as a result of it.

Your first sentence is borderline not worthy of a response because I said nor implied any of that. But I will attempt just one more time even though I'm sure it will be to no avail.

It has nothing to do with brainwashing. It has a lot to do with today's journalism, the instantaneous access to said journalism, and a combination of group think and confirmation bias.

Let me break it down for you one more time since it seems it's needed. Someone like yourself, who has invested so much time in a team that has sucked for the majority of the last two decades under Snyder, eventually becomes battered (your word not mine ). A lot of that suck was Dan/the FO's doing over the past two decades so no argument there from me. Hopefully you're still with me. Okay, so the team has sucked eggs for a long time and at some point you reached a breaking point where you associated most of what the Redskins do as being their fault or stupid. Or at least heavily slanted in that direction. You became skeptical, and instead of convincing yourself it would get better, you decided to begin to question how things were being done. That's totally and completely fair. We've been burned by Dan and his shenanigans many times. Nothing I'm saying is a direct insult toward you, nor am I speaking as if I am the enlightened one. I am simply trying to articulate what I mean and hopefully you're still following...

Now comes the media's role. The DC sports media (just like most media) recognize what stirring up the pot and drama does when a team like the Redskins have largely been inept for the better part of two decades. It's more clicks, more traffic, and many fans such as yourself eat up Redskins news surrounding dysfunction BECAUSE it confirms your newly held beliefs, that Dan and the FO suck, and everything they continue to do must be inept. That's what I mean by easy. You don't want to be burned by the team you love anymore so it's easier per se to swing to the other side and question everything they do. It's a protection mechanism if you will.

It used to be that something would happen, lets say the Alex Smith trade, and you would have to wait until the next day to read it in the paper. People had a little time to take in the news, formulate their own opinions, and come to a conclusion. In today's day and age, where there are a million tweets, and tweets to news articles, etc. that are available almost instantaneously as something is occurring, there is not a whole lot of analyzing being done. There is zero time to process, which lends itself way more to confirmation bias and going along with what the masses are saying. Which when talking about the Redskins in the news, is usually negative. Snyder is an easy target because of his past. It's not brainwashing. It doesn't mean you don't have your own opinion, clearly you already have yours set in stone.

Now, I don't think I have posted anywhere on this site saying how excited I am for Alex Smith, Kirk Cousins sucks, lets rev up Redskins one and go sign a bunch of guys, yada yada yada. And just one more time so that I make sure we stay on the same page, I'm not some ardent supporter of the Redskins FO who thinks they do everything right. They DO deserve to be questioned based on their past history. With that said, if you truly analyze this team's performance and FO moves since 2014, it does not match the narrative you continue to spread around here. It just doesn't. And going back to the Kirk situation, just because they didn't do everything right along the way, does not mean that this wasn't an extremely unprecedented situation that many parties played a hand in the final outcome. Just because we haven't been successful for the past 20 years doesn't mean that everything we ever do will suck. Things DO change. And they will again. And if you really pay attention to the team we have been building for the past 3-4 offseasons, I think you will find we have a real chance to be successful in the near future. I saw glimpses of something this season I had not seen in my lifetime as a fan. Like Kirk said himself, we were damn close this year. And I'd venture to bet without injuries we probably would have gotten there.

Basically, you can sum my thoughts up similar to Cooley did this morning. We aren't perfect, but the belief that the present day Redskins are a clown show by fans such as yourself is WAY overblown.

2

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Funniest part is if you present reasoning outside of saying the FO is terrible, Bruce is a douche, and Dan is a master manipulator, it means you have a blind allegiance to the FO and kick the player to the curb in favor of Bruce/Dan. Some make it very black and white when there is in fact a lot of grey area here.

You would think we were the Cleveland Browns who went 1-31 (LOL) the last two seasons by listening to some. Not a team who has an above .500 winning percentage over the past three seasons. The narrative doesn’t necessarily fit reality, but then I remind myself that some people just love being negative for the sake of being negative. It’s easy or comfortable, or maybe some truly don’t recognize the power of instantaneous media and social media in today’s day and age.

With this FO, nothing is ever easy. That's the problem with it.

The issue with this particular front office is the inability to employ sound FO personnel who can do their job at least at a mid-level performance; they don't have to be the absolute best at their job, but just someone who doesn't muck things up. Cerrato, and now Allen; 2 guys who have made far too many mistakes with their position and vision, have made this team the pun of jokes for years.

Yes, we aren't the Browns, but us fans are seeing the direction this team is and has been heading for a long time, and they are much much closer to the Browns than to being a winning team. Back in 2015, Cousins showed he could be the QB of the future, but the FO wasn't impressed, the following season, same story. The whole time KC was showing he had skills but the FO still refused to sign him, and that cold shoulder is what started this entire ordeal. That made KC bitter and now he's going somewhere else where he would be appreciated, but the FO could have put an end to this 3 years ago, but choked.

When this team gets another young QB who shows promise, it will be the same thing all over again; Bruce Allen will screw the pooch and botch things up again, and even now this team is on the verge of losing a number of good players, Does anyone believe Allen is losing a wink of sleep over it? Hell no, he's too self-absorbed in his Allen name that he thinks he can do no wrong, and he's somehow hoodwinked Snyder into believing everything he says.

So, yes, being negative isn't fun, but its the natural reaction to a team that fans have invested a lot of money and pride into, only to see people like Allen constantly throw it into a dumpster. Being mad or disenfranchised with this team is growing and growing, and until major changes are made [ people are fired ] things will not change; Bruce has ruined this team enough, just as he did in Tampa.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Basically, you can sum my thoughts up similar to Cooley did this morning. We aren't perfect, but the belief that the present day Redskins are a clown show by fans such as yourself is WAY overblown.

On the Cooley stuff in multiple segments he doesn't really make you feel that good though about the FO. In other segments, he'd agreed that that they totally blew the Kirk negotiations and mishandled Scot. And in a nice way his general take on them is look on the aggregate the FO just isn't that sharp they are "meh". And this is from a guy who admits he's friends with those people and has a hard time criticizing them.

As for the dysfunction specifically his lines are more or less he knows some of these people who are mocked and he doesn't think they are bad people and even if its indeed going on players generally blow that stuff off -- they care about their coaches and teammates. He goes Kirk was unique in being FO centric. At the same time, he says he totally gets fan skepticism and believes its warranted until the FO proves otherwise.

I understand your take though. Your post I've said almost verbatim about the Shanny era until it blew up and it got crazy and we learned later the stories about Dan pushed the McNabb trade among other stuff. Dan's learned. He's now chilled. It's better. We've gotten that story on and off for multiple regimes now -- that it seems plausible initially. Then we learned later not so much.

My take is still a little different for this thread as to Dan. I put more of the crazy on Bruce than Dan. I don't think Dan pulls Bruce's strings all of the time. I think he likely does some time. I do think Dan is a part of the crazy. But I think Bruce is the lead crazy right now. I don't mean "crazy" literally of course.

As reactive as the media is (and I agree with you on that point) if you track the national media specifically and to some degree the local, too. The media started years back if anything by rallying around Bruce. They rallied about the hey the Redskins are smarter, better, bigger, stronger. For this to turn the other way so sharply. Bruce had to earn his stripes for media to go a 180 on him and the operation. He methodically worked it and finally got there to the Redskins becoming a punch line with help from Dan. The highlights were:

A. All the RG3 stuff to end the 2013 year -- the coddling, the odd stories and firing of Shanny related to it

B. The QB stuff in 2014 including insistence that RG3 play against Minny and the extension after the year. All the odd stories started to come out then about it.

C. The Bruce winning off the field press conference (started to set the tone that maybe Bruce isn't that competent and doesn't quell the crazy)

D. The Scot stuff. And it wasn't just the WP stories but how they handled the stories leading up to it. The multiple narratives about what happened behind the scenes.

D. The Kirk contract which ultimately came with leak after leak about Kirk-Bruce-Kirk agent not loving each other including Chick's tweet about Kirk won't sign here as long as Bruce is the team's President. That was the harshest among the stories and probably not true. But multiple guys covering the stories implied Bruce was a jerk in the negotiation.

F. The Press Release. I think that was the kicker. It showed the national media that yeah maybe Bruce is this dense out of touch jerk that some of his critics suggest he is.

H. The leaks about how the Redskins FO needs to see more from Kirk late in the 2017 season.

I. Bruce in part out of pettiness is willing to tag Kirk and try to trade him and might be willing to do a standoff with his agent. The thing to me about H and I is that they possibly and maybe even likely are not be true. But the FO is at a low point rep wise when the national media sees it possibly true because that's how the Redskins roll.

One of the reasons why I've had it with Bruce in the current regime is I've said exactly what Cooley said and that is their competence isn't awful but its "meh". But the key reason why I want him gone is that he made the team a punchline again. And no IMO its not because that's just how the media rolls. It's how they roll about the Redskins now (after a nice hiatus) and the Redskins FO has totally earned their punch line status.

And Bruce had to really work it along with Dan to make it happen again. Because they were given the benefit of the doubt for years. It's not like the Titans and just about every team is a punch line. It's a few select ones that are made fun of and the Redskins again are one of those "special" teams.

Only difference to me between old school Dan and this new version of the Redskins is they have a good play caller and a good QB. Otherwise the FO is just as uninspired as the past. And they come off just as much as the buffoons by how they handle things publicly as Cerrato. Bruce's version of the buffoonry is just a different brand of it IMO.

Is the media invention part of it. Yes. But it was set up for them. It's kind of like the kid who gets in trouble in school. Then something else happens but he gets unfairly blamed for it. Is that an unfair accusation? Technically, yes. But the kid's antics has put him on the spot where the teacher is willing to say hey that was you, wasn't it? The skepticism is there.

That's what Bruce IMO has done to this organization. And he had to really work it. But yeah now we actually have national media guys saying on twitter a week ago things like I've talked to my sources and they tell me yeah Bruce is that dumb. And other stuff like that. But Bruce earned it. Dan obviously part of this, too.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Skinsinparadise

4

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Now comes the media's role. The DC sports media (just like most media) recognize what stirring up the pot and drama does when a team like the Redskins have largely been inept for the better part of two decades. It's more clicks, more traffic, and many fans such as yourself eat up Redskins news surrounding dysfunction BECAUSE it confirms your newly held beliefs, that Dan and the FO suck, and everything they continue to do must be inept. That's what I mean by easy. You don't want to be burned by the team you love anymore so it's easier per se to swing to the other side and question everything they do. It's a protection mechanism if you will.

Here's the thing, I don't really need the media's click bait to confirm what I already know about this current Redskins FO. I actually think if anything is overblown it's this belief that the media has it out for the Redskins FO. The events that occur alone are enough to remain very skeptical of the FO. The "I was told by..." or "a source close to the situation said..." stuff isn't usually hard to believe given the actual events that have actually taken place.

I'm not stuck in my beliefs because I simply choose to be, the organization keeps providing fuel for that fire - not the media. As an example, when they hired Scot - I was ecstatic and actually believed that Dan finally got it and told Bruce he needed to bring in a legit football guy to run the show. I was willing to overlook his past history, the head-scratching fact that he wasn't bringing in his own guys and keeping the folks already there, etc. But go figure that was actually a mirage and Bruce was still pulling the strings. To further compound that mistake, they promote freaking Doug Williams to replace him. I don't need the media to tell me that's a laugher.

13 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

With that said, if you truly analyze this team's performance and FO moves since 2014, it does not match the narrative you continue to spread around here.

One key point your missing in all that is one of the chefs in the kitchen no longer works there. Perhaps its a coincidence, but it's interesting that the better drafts the team had in quite some time were when that chef was employed either as a consultant or a glorified scout they called "GM" for the public. I don't even know enough about the current group under Bruce and Doug to really credit or discredit them on anything. But what I do know is that no matter what they are answering to folks that know a lot less than they do. That's never usually a good thing in the front office of a professional football team.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Now comes the media's role. The DC sports media (just like most media) recognize what stirring up the pot and drama does when a team like the Redskins have largely been inept for the better part of two decades. It's more clicks, more traffic, and many fans such as yourself eat up Redskins news surrounding dysfunction BECAUSE it confirms your newly held beliefs, that Dan and the FO suck, and everything they continue to do must be inept.

I can see the media stirring up the pot like they always do with the Redskins. I could see them being the bad guys and Bruce and Dan being the good guys and that everything is made up by the media and not our beloved FO.

Now you still have to admit that we went the last 3 years with an improbable chain of events that makes you wonder about this FO. There's a reason no QB was ever tagged twice in a row. Until the Redskins managed the situation. If everything was only made up by the media, then they would have been proven wrong by this FO.

The simple fact that all those leaks exists, that the media are able to stir the pot like they do it sometimes, is just showing how 'meh' they are. That FO is really given the staff to get beaten really. They seem to always go the wrong route when they have an important decision.

Nobody would have complained much if we traded Norman for Smith. That would have been acceptable. Or Preston Smith, some good player, but not the most promising youngest one in Kendall Fuller. Like I said, handing the staff to get beaten...

Firing the GM that stood on the table for a QB weeks before you have to sign that same QB? Check

Tagging a QB twice? Check

Piling on that QB during a national presser? Check

Mishandling the firing of the GM? Check

Making a trade without settling the situation with your QB first? Check.

Honestly, the worst part with our FO is that they have NO vision. NO clue. NO idea of what to do. They just roll the eight ball and act accordingly...

Which is basic 101 of what not to do to run an organization. Especially in Pro Sports.

If the media are really stirring the pot like you said, they're really asking for it, and do everything in that sense...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To me I keep going back to the press release on Kirk. It was so ill conceived, petty and stupid that I think that was the kicker.

I don't need the media to tell me what to think. And I agree that the media loves to sensationalize things. My point though on the media front is they really had Bruce's back initially. They didn't turn on him fast. It took of series of events to unfold one after the other for Bruce to earn Vinny level punch line status.

But I think the press release was the icing of it all. The idea that Bruce thought it was smart to read publicly his low ball offer and to include shots at both Kirk and the agent in the mix -- IMO sealed the deal.

You had all these narratives at the time from people covering the Scot and Kirk stories about Bruce being petty, a jerk and obtuse -- depending on the source. And you can think to yourself maybe this stuff is off. But then Bruce acts that part to a tee and in an in your face fashion, reading that release -- and he's doing it actually thinking that this is showing the best side of the organization as to how to explain the deal.

So then later when we are having these debates about Bruce-Dan. Petty? Incompetent? Are you crazy why do you believe that narrative? I can circle back to that press release and say look this is what they openly believe is good behavior-shows competence. Can you imagine then what goes on behind the scenes?

4

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But I think the press release was the icing of it all. The idea that Bruce thought it was smart to read publicly his low ball offer and to include shots at both Kirk and the agent in the mix -- IMO sealed the deal.

To me it wasn't even so much that the offer was lowball as it was so pathetic the way it was written to play it up. I get the feeling he left Michigan that day shocked and insulted, only to spend the plane ride angrily crafting that pile of crap.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To me it wasn't even so much that the offer was lowball as it was so pathetic the way it was written to play it up. I get the feeling he left Michigan that day shocked and insulted, only to spend the plane ride angrily crafting that pile of crap.

Yeah reading the release in a room to 3 reporters, Finlay who was there said the whole thing was really bizarre. But that's our brain trust in action.

To me it sealed that deal that maybe there is something to the side of the story on both Scot and the Kirk contract -- that the building isn't screaming with competence and good behavior.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LOL and if Bruce hadn't have said anything, you'd be the same people claiming we didn't even attempt to make an offer. His press release was in July. That contract was offered in May. No one knew about that contract offer in May. There are no leaks anymore.

That press release was 6 fricken paragraphs, piling on my behind. It was an attempt to inform the fanbase that we HAVE in fact been trying to make a deal with the guy that 90% of the fanbase thinks we HAVENT been. For the love of god, go re-read what Bruce said. Sensationalize is an understatement. You would think Bruce stood up there with a Kirk Cousins dart board and was humming darts right between his eyes while saying "Kirk is an asshat. He sucks and that's why he's not here longterm." GO RE READ IT!

And since when would the guaranteed money for a player on the franchise tag not be included as part of the long term guarantees? Since when did that become a thing?! The whole 29M in guarantees or 1M more than what he would earn on the transition tag the following year is a spin job to make us look like a joke. 53M with 72 GTD for injury is NOT a joke initial offer. Goddam.

I DON'T EVEN LIKE BRUCE. I WANT HIM GONE. But holy hell, I haven't seen a fan base go to bat more for a player who literally did not want to sign here. Queue the "well how bad did it have to be for him not to want to sign here" BS. As others have pointed out, many of our homegrown continue to resign with us. We don't seem to have a problem attracting FA's i.e. Jackson, Norman, Swearinger, Brown, etc. So you are telling me that we are able to accomplish all of those things, many of them good, but those guys are just completely oblivious to the trainwreck that is the Washington Redskins? Or is it sensationalized or overblown? Give me a friggin break.

4

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@HardcoreZorn Just when I think you've reached the depths of despair to find reasons to keep arguing, you then defend the press release. I can't recall anyone off hand that actually defended that, not even the Anti-est of AntiKirks thought that was a good idea. Congrats sir.

4

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

LOL and if Bruce hadn't have said anything, you'd be the same people claiming we didn't even attempt to make an offer. His press release was in July. That contract was offered in May. No one knew about that contract offer in May. There are no leaks anymore.

Publicizing an offer. Weird. Publicizing a low ball offer. Weirder. Editorializing the deal as a good one but the player wouldn't take it. Weirder, yet. Calling out the agent in the press release for no counter offer. Weird. Joel Corry, who isn't a media member but an agent who has been around the business for years said after the release more or less Bruce just kicked Kirk right out the door, he doesn't see him coming back now. locally Keim and nationally Breer talked repeatedly how offended Kirk's camp was about it. They knew he would say they offered Kirk a contract and he turned it down but the editorial wasn't expected.

The FO didn't respond to Kirk's agent last offer in 2016. Kirk and his agent didn't leak it then -- maybe they should have put out a press release? We counter offered with a figure that matched the franchise tag. We wanted to be here long term but the FO didn't respond at all. Nada. Not a peep. Later we found out the FO prefers me on a one year deal than a LTC. Kirk and his agent didn't do that because that would be strange and tactless.

Steelers leak out the tit for tat details about the negotiation with Bell? Despite our repeated efforts, Bell's agent never even counter offered. We offered Bell the 2nd richest deal of all time....

1 hour ago, HardcoreZorn said:

I haven't seen a fan base go to bat more for a player who literally did not want to sign here.

Why do you think he didn't want to be here. He didn't like the Redskins? Had a beef with the fans? The teammates? Hated Jay? Every story of why he didn't like it here by people close to the action centered on Bruce.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We offered 71M guaranteed for a four years older QB. In a 4 year contract extension. Which means that he'll basically be here at least 3 years.

Now 53 at the signature and 72 guaranteed, was a 2 year contract and just above the minimum Kirk would have netted in being tagged.

Derek Carr signed for 125M, 71M guaranteed. 5 years in June. Stafford signed for 135M in August, except he was at a 50M signing bonus. Mike Glennon? 18.5M/ year... Mike Glennon!

So yeah, that was a joke of an offer. Probably not in my human standards, and yours where 72M of bucks are lots of money, but in QB standards, that ain't much. 2 years is not a commitment to a QB...

Now I'm still trying to find out why did they did not want to commit to a 29 year QB that knew the team and the coaches and everything that goes with it (including a bunch of records). For a 34 years old guy that will have to learn everything and have not so many weapons as what he's used too. Also, let's not forget that the guy that traded you Smith is the same one that raped you in the McNabb trade...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

And since when would the guaranteed money for a player on the franchise tag not be included as part of the long term guarantees? Since when did that become a thing?! The whole 29M in guarantees or 1M more than what he would earn on the transition tag the following year is a spin job to make us look like a joke. 53M with 72 GTD for injury is NOT a joke initial offer. Goddam.

Really! I mean, since when do you not get credit for "offering" someone money that they already have? I bought my daughter a car this week and was shocked to learn that the dealer wouldn't play by these rules. Has the world gone mad?